Whether, however, this version has not been influenced by readings derived from the Latin has been a matter of dispute. Some have even asserted a peculiar accordance with the Codices D. and L.: but as this resemblance seems only to be found in passages in which these MSS. agree with the Latin, and as it is impossible for it to be maintained that this accordance with D. and L. is general (when every page of Griesbach's Greek Testament shows the reverse), it seems as if this asserted accordance was so far a proof of Latin influence. And this need surprise no one; for Latin was early used in the services of the Slavonians prior to the reading of the Gospel in their own tongue. The contentions relative to the use of Slavonian at all in public worship were strenuous even in the time of Methodius; and in 880 Pope John VIII. (or IX.) ordered that the Gospel should be first read in Latin and then given in the Slavonian interprepation. This seems to be quite sufficient to account for an admixture of Latin readings.

A comparison of the readings of this version with the Gothic shows that, in many places, what was a transition text at the time when that translation was made, had now passed into the further stage of transcriptural change which might have been expected in the lapse of time.

THE PERSIC GOSPELS.-There are two Persic versions of the Gospels; one of them, with a Latin translation, was inserted in Walton's Polyglott, taken from an Oxford MS. belonging to Pococke', written A. D. 1341. The other was formed, it appears, from two Cambridge MSS. Its publication was commenced (as far as Matt. xvii.) by Abraham Wheloc, in 1652, and completed by Pierson in 1657, at the expence of Thomas Adams. Walton mentions that of this Persic version Wheloc had two MSS., one at Cambridge and one at Oxford; and to them Pierson adds a notice of a third, belonging to Pococke. But this, it appears, could only be that containing the other version,- that given in the Polyglott.

The Persic version published by Walton was made, no doubt, from the Peshito Syriac: its only real critical value, therefore, would be in connexion with the text of that version; but it is too recent to be of more than very slight value even for that object.

The Persic of Wheloc and Pierson seems to have been a version made from the Greek: but as the editors appear also to have used Pococke's MS., it becomes a mixed text, of no value in criticism on that account, even if it were not so from its recent date.2

THE GEORGIAN VERSION.-The Georgian or Iberian version was published at Moscow in 1743. It is said, on probable grounds, that the text which thus appeared had been interpolated from the

1 Codex Pocockianus, 128. No. 5453. in Catal. Librorum MStorum Angliæ et Hiberniæ in unum collectorum, 1. i. 275.

2 In 1751 and the following year Bode published at Helmstadt a Latin translation of the Polyglott text of the Persic version of St. Matthew and of St. Mark; in the Prefaces to these two volumes he goes into an examination of the respective editions, &c.

Slavonic by the Georgian princes Arkil and Wacuset: some say that this was done at an early period. It is stated that this version was made from the Greek in the sixth century. No critical use can be made of it until it is better known, and its readings ascertained from MSS. unaffected by the Slavonic. The points of inquiry should be, -its actual date; whether it was made from the Greek or from the Armenian (which is on some accounts more probable'); and whether in any copies it is free from Slavonic alteration. If the Georgian version be, in any existing form, an unsophisticated monument of the sixth century, it would probably take as high a place amongst critical authorities as the Philoxenian Syriac would have done prior to its being rewrought by Thomas of Harkel.

To these versions some have added the Anglo-Saxon Gospels : but, however interesting as a monument of the early Christianity of the second race in this island who adopted that profession, it has no critical place, as it was made from the Latin. Its historical value relates to the inquiry what Latin text was employed in this island in Saxon days.

It is important to see that there is no occasion to encumber the critical page with the citations: Ar. Rom., Ar. Erp., Ar. Polygl., Slav., Pers. Whel., Pers. Polygl., Georg., Sax. The retention of these references has helped to draw away attention from the witnesses of this class who are really worthy of a voice in criticism.

CHAP. XXXIV.

EARLY CITATIONS, AS SOURCES OF CRITICISM.

THE early citations made from the books of the New Testament, are materials which we may use in connection with the history of the text itself, or in combination with the other sources of criticism which have been already discussed, as means towards the restoration of that text to the condition in which it was at an age at least not very remote from that of the Apostles.

To the use of such citations for the former purpose some allusion was made above (see Chap. IV. p. 37. seq.); it is only with the latter that they have now to be regarded. It may, however, be remarked, that even though now looked at in one of their aspects, the reader can hardly fail to see the cumulative evidence that is afforded to the bearing of such citations on the history and early use of the sacred books in the hands of Christians.

Those who have but little personal acquaintance with the subject have at times been inclined to rank the authority of early citations too highly, and at other times to undervalue them as unduly. Some have sought to give them an authority superior to that of other witnesses, and others have regarded them as being, almost as a matter

This probability would be set aside if internal evidence showed the absence of affinity.

of course, lax, careless, and incapable of showing what the passage really read, which the author quoted or intended to quote. Both of these estimates are incorrect as a general fact, though each may at times be perfectly true.

This may be illustrated by the usage of modern writers. It can hardly be denied that expositors, preachers, and others, who employ our English authorised version, do in general take their citations from it; so much so, that any quotations found in the Homilies or in the writers of the Elizabethan age, are instantly felt to belong to a different class to those with which we now meet. Also, the distinction is at once perceived when a passage is cited from the Prayer Book version of the Psalms instead of its being from that in our Bibles, and vice versa. Now, it is claimed by critics that in patristic writings it is in general as definite a thing what text they used as it is amongst those who employ the English language. In the latter half of the reign of James I. we find English authors sometimes following the version or revision which had been then newly made, sometimes quoting from the Bishop's Bible, sometimes from the Geneva translation; but in each case the fact is at once determinable. It is, indeed, said that the laxity of the early Fathers is such in their citations that they can help us to no certain conclusion. It is also objected that they quote passages in forms in which there is no reason to suppose that they ever existed in copies of the New Testament; and that they sometimes quote as Scripture that which is not in the Bible at all; and if these points are established, it is said that it is useless to rely on anything so indefinite and misleading. Now, all this and more might be true, and yet the utility of patristic citations would not be rendered void; for what if the same things might be said of our modern English writers? Are there not many who interweave the words of Scripture into their discourses, in such a way that they do not give precisely what is found in the sacred books, even though they show abundantly whence the thoughts, and even the leading words, were taken? And just so is it with the early Fathers. They used the words and expressions of Scripture in what they wrote, even when the construction and form of the sentence was greatly changed. Such citations are simply to be taken for what they are worth. If the question is, whether such a leading word is or is not to be read in a passage, a very loose citation, or even allusion, may show that the writer in question recognised it. So, too, when there is a mere allusion; it may be amply sufficient in proof that a writer knew a particular passage, the genuineness of which as a whole may be under discussion. Also, do we not sometimes find, "It is appointed unto ALL men once to die," quoted from Heb. ix., with much emphasis placed on the word which is not in the text? And is it not constant, habitual, and daily, for some to speak and write of Evangelical orthodoxy and spiritual Christianity as being "the truth as it is in Jesus"? A resemblance to these words, but differently connected, and in a distinct form, is all that is really to be found in the New Testament; many, however, seem very incredulous when their attention is called to this fact. And if early Fathers

sometimes made such a mistake as to quote from Scripture what was never in Scripture, has no one who may read these remarks ever seen or heard" whose service is perfect freedom," or "in the midst of life we are in death," quoted as though it were really a portion of the Word of God?

And yet our facilities for accuracy in quotations are such as were utterly out of the reach of early writers. They did not possess the Scriptures conveniently divided into chapters and verses for purposes of reference; they had not even the accommodation of regular punctuation or word division; their books were cumbrous, and it was impossible for them to consult them at every turn with facility; they had no concordances, no indexes, and similar conveniences at hand. If, then, we, with all these aids, are sometimes lax in respect to Scripture quotation, it would be unreasonable if we were to expect perfect exactitude from the early Fathers, and if we were, therefore, to suppose that they were habitually careless and inattentive.

Modern English references made to Holy Scripture may be arranged under three general heads: quotations of the very words taken from the Sacred Text itself; loose citations, in which some variation has been made, whether from intention or not; and mere allusions which do not pretend to anything of exactness as to either words or expressions. If this classification is borne in mind, it will be found that it is rare indeed for a theological writer not to give continual proof that he has simply employed our common English authorised version. And if the patristic citations be similarly divided, the same thing will be manifestly true of them with regard to the Greek text which they employed. As to the condition in which their citations have been transmitted to us, a few remarks may be subsequently made.

The value of citations as sources of criticism is not to be estimated by what they are, or may seem to be, when standing alone; it is in connection with the other authorities that they have a peculiar value. Thus, an expression evidently taken from the New Testament by a Father, but in a form found neither in manuscript or version, may have been, perhaps, some mere lax allusion of his own, or an interweaving of something taken from the New Testament into the line of his argument or discourse. But if a Father cites a passage, definitely agreeing with one class of ancient witnesses, in a place where they stand opposed to some other testimonies, there need be prima facie no doubt that he actually quotes what was in his copy; and thus he materially confirms that class of witnesses. But if a Father says distinctly that a reading which he quotes was that of one particular Gospel, and that another reading which he mentions was that of the parallel passage in another Gospel, or if he expressly rests on the words and phrases of a reading, and states unequivocally that they were so and so, his evidence has very great weight; and it is in itself a proof, not indeed that the reading is of necessity genuine, but at least that it was current in the time of the Father in question: if otherwise it is well confirmed, few lections could be better attested. Also, if the general citations of a Father are proved by comparative criticism to rank high, even his obiter dicta are worthy of very consi

derable attention, to say the least. The value, however, of patristic testimony in comparative criticism is, in general, the converse of this: for as such quotations are occasional and fragmentary, they must be regarded as rather attesting those MSS. and versions with which they are at all in characteristic accordance.

Before a judgment can be at all rightly given of the critical value of the citations of any one Father, it is needful that his writings should be carefully studied; that his mode of using Holy Scripture should be known, and that it should be seen whether he is tolerably uniform in his mode of quoting the same passages; and if not, whether the circumstances of time and place can at all account for the variation. Also, in the writings of the same Father, attention should be paid to the nature of the work in which a quotation occurs; for more verbal exactitude might be reasonably looked for in an exposition than in a discourse or a hortatory treatise in which Scripture is more casually

cited.

Some of the more important of the early writers will now be specified, with a general mention of the value of those citations which they contain which bear on the textual criticism of the New Tes

tament.

The early Greek writers must be the first considered; for it is only from them that direct aid can be obtained.

The genuine writings of the APOSTOLIC FATHERS, as those writers have been termed, who were partly contemporaries with the Apostles of our Lord, contain few citations from the New Testament which are at all available for purposes of criticism. The genuine Epistle of CLEMENT of Rome contains but few passages that can be regarded as quotations from the New Testament, though the influence of the sacred writers is abundantly evident, and passages quoted from the Old Testament have been adopted through the form in which they stand in the New. IGNATIUS, now that we possess some Epistles which possess a good claim to be his, and in a genuine form, gives us a few sentences which are worth more as to the history of the Canon than for textual criticism.1

The Epistle of POLYCARP furnishes us with more citations, as he

1 See Cureton's CORPUS IGNATIANUM for the account of the Syriac version of three Ignatian Epistles in a form free from the additions made by the interpolator of the larger Greek recension, and also as not containing the passages to which on strong grounds objection had been made two centuries prior to the discovery of the Nitrian MSS.

It would be a mistake to suppose that Mr. Cureton has cast doubt on anything that was previously unquestioned. The Greek copies of Ignatius have come down to us in two forms, one containing great interpolations, and with forged epistles added as part of the same collection, the other with forged epistles also intermixed, but with the rest in a shorter form;a form, however, which showed at times an entire difference from the larger copies. Hence it was concluded by Griesbach and others that the two forms of the Greek were both of them enlargements of something which they possessed in common. This conclusion has been singularly confirmed by Mr. Cureton's discovery; for in the three Syriac Epistles we find what is common to both Greek recensions, but not the parts in which they widely diverge. It is a mistake to speak of seven Ignatian Epistles in Greek having been transmitted to us, for no such seven exist, except through their having been selected by editors from the Medicean MS., which contains so much that is confessedly spurious; -a fact which some who imagine a diplomatic transmission of seven have overlooked. In the three in Syriac we have what in form and character is attested by good and credible evidence as the actual work of Ignatius.